5.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Warsaw.
6.  On an unspecified date in March 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant.
7.  On 26 March 2001 the applicant was indicted before the Warsaw District Court. The bill of indictment comprised charges of fraud and forgery of documents.
8.  At a hearing held on 19 September 2003 the applicant's lawyer lodged a request for the case to be remitted to the Warsaw District Prosecutor. The prosecutor appealed. On 19 November 2003 the request was dismissed.
9.  The subsequent hearings, listed for 20 December 2005 and 23 March 2006, were adjourned as on both occasions the victim had not been properly summoned.
10.  In the meantime, on 1 January 2006 the case had been assigned to another judge.
11.  At the hearing held on 8 June 2006, the court ordered that the documents concerning the applicant's health be obtained.
12.  At the hearing held on 14 July 2006, upon the request of the prosecutor, the court ordered that the applicant undergo a psychiatric examination and that an expert's report on his health be prepared.
13.  The hearing listed for 5 October 2006 was adjourned as the victim had again not been properly summoned.
14.  At the hearings held on 4 December 2006, 20 February and 29 March 2007 the applicant and four witnesses were heard.
15.  A further hearing, scheduled for 19 January 2007, was cancelled.
16.  On 20 February and 29 March 2007 the court ordered that an additional expert's report be prepared.
17.  On 29 May 2007 the court requested the Warsaw District Prosecutor to submit evidence supporting the charges against the applicant as laid down in the bill of indictment.
18.  The next hearings, listed for 5 September and 10 December 2007, were cancelled as the time-limit for the prosecutor to submit evidence had been prolonged until 29 February 2008.
19.  The subsequent hearing, set down for 10 March 2008, was cancelled due to the judge's illness.
20.  On 7 May 2008 the Warsaw District Court acquitted the applicant.
21.  On 7 November 2005 the applicant filed with the Warsaw Regional Court a complaint about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time in respect of the criminal proceedings instituted against him and asked for just satisfaction. He relied on the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”), which entered into force on 17 September 2004. The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Warsaw District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 9,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (the equivalent of approx. 2,250 euros (EUR)).
22.  On 2 December 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his complaint. It limited its examination of the length of the proceedings to the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act and stressed that the Act could not be applied to the protracted length of court proceedings occurring before that date. Having analysed the conduct of the Warsaw District Court during the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act, the court found that the proceedings had been conducted with due diligence and within a reasonable time.
23.  On 20 February 2008 the applicant filed his second complaint under the 2004 Act. The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Warsaw District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 50,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (the equivalent of approx. 12,500 euros (EUR)).
24.  On 4 March 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his complaint. The court examined only the course of the proceedings after 2 December 2005 (the date on which the applicant's first length complaint had been dismissed). No delays on the part of the District Court were found. As a result, the court stated that during this period the District Court had not violated the applicant's right to have his case heard within a reasonable time.